, aR at ei Fig: ' ‘se 5 at r oT 
BS Wak Laan 
Or a OF THE 
ni n0- a lige OMIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 








Vv — 9 FEBRUARY, 1916 No. 17 





DIVISION OF 


UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


? aft pe 
dé ws " 

Ki of} 
ay | a é 


IN 


[ 
t 
} 

t 


oe 


ij 


DEBATING AND ,,. 
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ee TOF ity 





FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 
UNIVERSITY OF IL71 


yT Ya en + ges 
Bhs Sut A kG AS, aD 


HH Cie a NWSI 


Adini Mis ow AVA & WT abare 


ae ne OP EE SS RR ES A LT Ne TOE § 
——— See >. em - ~< 
fa a ~~ ‘ae i "fy? #2 rr 
¥ j gz ‘ 
. / \ g 








ee, a 


EOabhshed by the University of Arkansas. Issued bi-weekly. Entered at the Post Office at 
F ayeteville, Ark., as second-class matter under Act of Congress, July 16, 1894. 


— 


ta, ee ey ee 


Mit, hi 


— 
* 


2 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING 


INTRODUCTION 


There are probably few persons who question the value of self-expres- 
sion in training for leadership. Most persons will admit, too, that the 
power to speak effectively is a most valuable aid to good citizenship. The 
common sense and good judgment of the individual citizen become effec- 
tive when he is able to present his views to others in a convincing man- 
ner. It is true that some men seem to have greater native capacity for 
doing this than others, but the gift can be cultivated in all persons to a 
great degree by practice. 


Some attention has been paid to this drill in the high schools of Ar- 
kansas by means of debating societies, literary societies, and inter-school 
debates, but it is the belief of the Division of Extension of the University 
of Arkansas that a greater good to a greater number of high school pupils 
might be accomplished, if there should be somewhat more co-ordination 
of this work than exists at present. It is the purpose of this bulletin, then, 
to suggest a plan for the organization of a High School Debating League 
that will include the whole state. 


The high school debating league has had years of trial in some of the 
states of the Union and has been found to be a,most valuable aid not 
only in the development of interest in public speaking but also in the study 
of current questions. Some of these leagues have been in existence for 
more than a decade, with constantly increasing usefulness. There is one 
Southern state that has a league only four years old that last year had 
a membership of 250 schools. The time seems to be ripe for the similar 
forward movement in Arkansas. 


It was the original intention to begin the operation of the debating league 
during the school year 1915-16, and about the first of January, 1916, let- 
ters were sent out to the high schools of the state inviting them to become 
members of such a league. The majority of the high schools were unable 
to accept the invitation for this year, the principal reason being that 
many of them had already scheduled as many debates with neighboring 
high schools or with members of organizations covering certain parts of 
the state as they were able to conduct successfully. While a considerable 
number of high schools accepted the invitation, those schools are located 
in such widely distant parts of the state that it would not be practical 
to form a league with a membership confined to‘those sections. 


It has, therefore, been decided by the Division of Extension to pre- 
pare a tentative plan for the organization of a debaters’ league for 1916- 
17. It was decided also to send out some elementary suggestions for the 
guidance of debaters, along with a brief for a debate upon a question of 
the greatest interest to the American people, and a list of material to be 
used in the preparation of the debate, some of which should be easily 
accessible to any high school pupil. 


The Division of Extension will try to arrange inter-school debates 
during the rest of the school year 1915-16 for those schools that so desire. 


It should be borne in mind that the plans for an organization as sug- 
gested in this bulletin are merely tentative and are subject to whatever — 
changes may seem desirable. It may be that associations already in exis- 
tence having a number of counties in their territory will desire to continue 
their organization. If so, the winners of debating contests in these asso- 





DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 3 


ciations may be permitted to enter the High School Debaters’ League as 
the representative of their association. 


As soon as possible, and it is hoped for the year 1916-17, the Division 
of Extension of the University will prepare package libraries on subjects 
for debate which may be sent to the high schools desiring to use them. 
These package libraries will contain the best and most up-to-date argu- 
ments on the negative and affirmative sides of the question and will.con- 
sist of clippings and extracts from books, magazines, and periodicals. 


SUGGESTED RULES AND PLAN FOR ORGANIZATION 


1. Any public high school of Arkansas that is on the accredited list 
of the University of Arkansas may become a member of the league. 
Membership is secured by application to the Division of Extension of the 
University of Arkansas. In order that the organization may be completed 
at an early date, application for membership in the league in 1916-17 
should be made before May I, 1916. 


2. For purposes of organization, the state shall be divided into four 
debating districts, the Northeastern, the Northwestern, the Southeastern, 
and the Southwestern, made up as follows: 


Northeastern: The counties of Baxter, Clay, Cleburne, Craighead, 
Crittenden, Cross, Fulton, Greene, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Law- 
rence, Mississippi, Poinsett, Randolph, St. Francis, Sharp, Stone, White, 
and Woodruff. 


Northwestern: The counties of Benton, Boone, Carroll, Conway, 
Crawford, Faulkner, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Madison, Marion, Newton, 
Perry, Pope, Searcy, Sebastian, Van Buren, Washington, and Yell. 


Southeastern: The counties of Arkansas, Ashley, Bradley, Chicot, 
Cleveland, Desha, Drew, Grant, Jefferson, Lee, Lincoln, Lonoke, Monroe, 
Phillips, Prairie, Pulaski, and Saline. 


Southwestern: The counties of Calhoun, Clark, Columbia, Dallas, 
Garland, Hempstead, Hot Spring, Howard, Lafayette, Little River, Miller, 
Montgomery, Nevada, Ouachita, Pike, Polk, Scott, Sevier, and Union. 


3. There shall be a legislative and executive board composed of one 
member from each of the districts described in the preceding section and 
of one or more members from the faculty of the University of Arkan- 
sas. For purposes of temporary organization, the district directors for 
the year 1916-17 shall be chosen by the Division of Extension. In the 
succeeding years, the district director for each district shall be the su- 
perintendent or the principal of the school that has the winning team for 
that district. 


4. The duties of the executive board shall be (a) to select a ques- 
tion for the league debates, (b) to fix dates for the debates, (c) to set- 
tle all disputes among the members of the league. 


5. The schools of each district shall be arranged, as far as it is pos- 
sible, according to what is known as the triangular system of grouping. 
The proximity, convenience, and accessibility of the schools concerned 
will be considered in arranging the groups. Where the triangular debate 
is not practicable, arrangements will be made by the Division of Exten- 
sion so that the same principles shall apply, in large degree, to two or 
to four schools. 


a DIVISION. OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


6. Each school of each triangular group shall furnish two teams of 
two members each, one affirmative and one negative team. 


7, There shall be two series of debates in each district. In the 
first series, in which all the members of the league participate, each 
school debates two other schools of the group to which it belongs. In 
the second series, only the champion teams of each group participate. 
In this second contest, the triangular system or some modification of 
it shall be used so that it will be possible to declare some one school 
district champion. 


8. The contests of each group in any district shall be held on the 
same day. The debates of the first series shall be concluded before 
March 15. The debates of the second series shall be concluded before 
April 15. 


9. Each school winning a district championship shall send one 
team to the University of Arkansas for the final contest for the state 
championship. The date for this contest and other details will be ar- 
ranged by the Division of Extension. 


1o. In all debates except the final debate at the University, the 
home team shall have the affirmative of the question. 


11. Each team shall consist of two debaters. It is suggested that 
they be chosen from those who participate in a try-out debate. 


12. The debaters shall be bona fide members, boys or girls, of their 
high schools, carrying satisfactorily at least three subjects, and must not 
have completed any four-year course in any high school. 


13. At all contests the debaters shall be separated from the audience 
and shall receive no coaching while the debate is in progress. 


14. At all contests the time and order of the speakers shall be as 
follows: 


MAIN ARGUMENT REBUTTAL 
Affirmative, 12 minutes. Negative, 5 minutes. 
Negative, 12 minutes. Affirmative, 5 minutes. 
Affirmative, 12 minutes. Negative, 5 minutes. 
Negative, 12 minutes. Affirmative, 5 minutes. 


Each speaker shall have the same amount of time and no part of any 
speaker's time shall be given to-any other speaker. 


15. There shall be no cheering while any debater is speaking. Time 
so consumed by the speaker’s friends shall not be made up to him. 


16. At each contest there shall be three judges, selected on the basis 
of capability and impartiality. So far as it is possible, they should not 
be selected from persons connected in any way with the communities rep- 
resented by the debaters. The principals of the schools having the debat- 
ing teams shall agree on the judges. It is suggested that the principal of 
the school having the visiting team shall submit to the principal of the 
school where the debate is to be held a list of the names of six persons who 
live not more than fifty miles by least railway mileage from the latter 
school. From this list, the principal of the school where the debate is to 
be held shall choose two who shall be asked to act as judges. The prin- 
cipal of the school having the home team shall in like manner submit a 
list of three names. From these the principal of the school having the 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 5 


visiting team shall select one. If the judges asked to serve cannot accept, 
this process can be continued until judges are secured. The home team 
shall pay the transportation and hotel bills of the judges. 


17. During the debate, the judges shall sit apart from one another. 
They shall take into consideration both thought and delivery in both main 
and rebuttal speeches, and shall base their decision on the merits of the 
debate and not on those of the question. Each judge, at the conclusion 
of the contest, without consultation with any other judge, shall write on 
a card the word “Affirmative” or the word “Negative,” and he shall assign 
to each debater of each side a percentage grade. . He shall then sign this 
card, seal it in an envelope, and deliver it to the presiding officer, who 
' shall open the envelopes and announce the decision. 


18. In case the judges’ decision for the affirmative and negative, in 
any triangular debate, shall settle the championship without a tie, the 
percentage grades shall in no wise be taken into consideration. A unani- 
mous decision in one place shall prevail over a two-to-one decision in 
another place. But in case of a tie, one team winning in one place and 
their opponents in the other by the same vote of the judges, the average 
for the twelve grades given each school shall be taken, and the school 
having the higher or the highest average shall be declared the winner. It 
is necessary, then, that the presiding officer preserve the grades until it 
is fans that there is no need of settling the championship by percentage 
grades. 


19. The home team, unless it is agreed otherwise, shall bear the ex- 
penses of the visiting team, including railway fare and hotel bills. In 
some cases, it may be advisable for the participants in a triangular con- 
test to divide the total expenses for the three schools, each participant 
paying one-third of the whole. It is suggested that a small admission fee 
to the debates be charged to meet the expenses. 


20. The presiding officers and two timekeepers, all of whom, in gen- 
eral, may be from the community in which the debate is held, shall be 
chosen by the principals of the schools concerned. 


21. In case of any dispute between opposing teams, the Division of 
Extension stands ready to offer suggestions. 


THE TRIANGULAR DEBATE 


The plan for organization given in the preceding section includes the 
use of the triangular debate, the system that has been found most effective 
in the states that have had the most successful experience with high school 
debating leagues. It may be necessary, however, to give the reasons for 
its success. 


In the first place each school has two teams in the field, one on each 
side of the question. This helps to remove any element of luck in getting 
on the right side of a question, as sometimes happens in joint debate. It 
means that the question chosen will be one that is well balanced. It tends 
to eliminate quibbling over the wording of the question. 


_ In the second place, the triangular debate makes for better prepara- 
tion. It is obvious that there can be practice debates in each school when 
it has an affirmative and a negative team. 


6 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


SUGGESTIONS DESIRED 


In order that this movement may be a great success and that Arkan- 
sas may take her rightful place among the states that are doing much to 
develop the capacity for public speaking, it is earnestly requested by the 
Division of Extension that the principals and superintendents of Arkan- 
sas will offer suggestions as to the best means of putting the league into 
operation. It should be kept in mind that all proposed rules are only ten- 
tative. They represent, to be sure, principles that have succeeded else- 
where, but only the school men of this state can tell what will best meet 
local conditions. Suggestions, therefore, will be gladly received. 


SUGGESTIONS FOR DEBATERS 


The following suggestions are made somewhat general in the hope 
that they will apply not only to the Debating League, but that they will 
be found useful by all schools interested in public speaking and debate. 


THE QUESTION 


The questions that are selected for debate should be such that they 
will have some educational value to the student taking part in the debate, 
and they should be questions concerned with the welfare of society, not 
only for the training of citizenship, but because of the greater interest 
that may be aroused. The best of all questions for high school purposes, 
as a rule, are those that involve questions of vital interest to the state in 
which the student lives. Such subjects as good roads, consolidated schools, 
systems of taxation, drainage systems, improvements in agricultural meth- 
ods, municipal ownership of public service utilities, diversified farming, 
should be of interest to all the people of the state. Some knowledge of 
them may be within the experience of the student so that he will not have 
to depend upon authorities to such a degree that he becomes a mere 
parrot. 

This does not exclude the use of subjects drawn from history or the 
other studies of the student, for they certainly give the requisite drill in 
the methods of reasoning. They do not have, however, the elements of 
interest and practical value to most students. 


The state of mental development must be kept in mind in the selec- 
tion of the questions. The much-ridiculed questions of the relative value 
of the cow and the horse and the comparative merits of George Washing- 
ton and Christopher Columbus may be suitable for oral discussion by chil- 
dren who have not arrived at sufficient maturity to be able to consider in 
any way questions that puzzle the wisest of economists, such as bimetallism 
or the tariff. 


There are certain restrictions upon the kind of question, -however, 
that should apply to all questions debated by advanced high school pupils. 
The question should be capable of being proved approximately. Such a 
question as the comparative usefulness of the telegraph or the telephone 
results only in the enumeration of instances of usefulness, not in. logical 
proof. The question should have two sides. “Crime should be pun- 
ished” is not debatable, because all the reasons are on one side. Ques- 
tions that deal with religious opinions should not be debated for ob- 
vious reasons. Questions of taste, such as the relative merits of schools 
of art or kinds of architecture or even dress, cannot be debated to ad- 
vantage. 

STATING AND DEFINING THE QUESTION 


The question should be phrased so that the argument will not de- 
generate into quibbling over the meaning of words. To do this often 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION (\ 


requires considerable care. For example, the proposition, ‘Resolved, 
That Pan-Americanism should be encouraged,” contains two ambiguous 
expressions. Just what “Pan-Americanism” consists of, is a matter of 
doubt; “encouraged,” as used in the proposition, is a vague expression 
capable of several interpretations. A better way of stating the subject 
would be to suggest some definite movement looking to greater friend- 
liness with the other republics of America, such as a Congress to meet at 
frequent intervals. 


The proposition should not be stated so as to “beg the question.” 
The proposition, “Resolved, That the iniquitous practice of selling liquor 
should be abolished throughout the United States,’ begs the question by 
means of the word “iniquitous.” 


The question should be stated affirmatively; in other words, there 
should be no negative expressions in the statement. It should be said, 
too, so that the burden of proof is on the affirmative, as it is in law. 
That means that the affirmative of the proposition should take issue with 
the prevailing customs, beliefs, or laws. The prohibition question should 
be stated thus in Missouri: “Resolved, That Missouri should have state- 
wide prohibition.” In Arkansas, the statement would be, “Resolved, 
That Arkansas should have local option,” or “Resolved, That the prohi- 
bition law should be repealed.” 


The question should be stated as simply as possible and it should 
contain only one resolution. Any kind of double-headed proposition is 
exceedingly confusing to young debaters. 


Even when the. question has been worded with the greatest care, it 
will be found that there are some terms that need definition. The dic- 
tionary is likely to be of little service in this definition, for it is often 
a matter of the technical use of a common word. “Local option” in the 
sense in which it was used in the preceding proposition will not be found 
satisfactorily defined in the dictionary. Besides, it has different mean- 
ings to different men. A consensus of the opinions of the friends and 
foes of the measure will aid the debater in arriving at a definition. 


When definition is necessary, it should be done by the first affirma- 
tive speaker. If he is fair in defining the terms, his definitions are likely 
to.be accepted by the negative. 


CoLLECTING MATERIAL FOR DEBATE 


The prospective debater should, after deciding upon the question, 
first go over the ideas that are in his own mind in regard to the subject, 
so that he can relate anything that he may learn thereafter to what he 
already knows. He may talk the question over with some one who may 
know more about it than he does. He may write to authorities, but it is 
suggested that this method is employed too much, especially by those who 
wish to impress the judges with the written word of a high official of 
some kind. 


The most important means of preparation, however, is reading. This 
reading should cover both books and authoritative magazine articles. It 
will often be found that there is one book that will give a general view 
of the question to be discussed. This should, by all means, be bought and 
read. For current topics, however, the chief reliance must be placed upon 
the weekly’ or monthly publications, devoted wholly or in part to accounts 

and interpretations of the activities of the world, such as “The World’s 


8 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


Work,” “The Review of Reviews,” “The Literary Digest,” and “The In- 
dependent.” Some of these will be found in the high school reading room. 
If there is none, it will be found that some of these magazines are in the 
possession of persons in the community who are only too glad to lend them 
to those who will make use of them. The debater should read as many 
of the articles bearing upon his subject as he has time for. This reading 
should continue after he has framed his debate and knows about what he 
is expecting to say, for new points of view are being brought out from 
time to time on any really vital question. He should read both sides of 
the question, for it is necessary for him to understand both sides in order 
to discuss one side intelligently. 


As he reads, he should take notes upon some convenient size of cards . 
or small sheets of paper, of the points that seem to him to be of import- 
ance. Only one point or quotation should be written on each card or sheet 
of paper, which should contain also the exact page, name of the periodical 
or book, and the name of the author of the argument or statement. This 
card or single sheet method of taking notes is preferable to the note-book 
method because of the ease of arrangement for use later. 


ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 


After the debater has done considerable reading and has acquired 
some knowledge of both sides of the subject, it is necessary for him to 
analyze the question. The various steps of this process as they are given 
by most writers on argumentation are (1) the origin and history of the 
question, (2) definition of terms used in the proposition, (3) exclusion 
of matter not bearing directly on the question, (4) statement of admitted 
or waived matter, (5) contrasting the arguments of the affirmative and 
the negative. In the actual speech all this introductory material should be 
condensed as much as possible. Some of it does not apply to every ques- 
tion discussed. In no case should it make up more than about a third of 
the entire speech. 


Some statement of the origin and history of the question is necessary 
when the question is one that is unfamiliar to the audience, or when the 
history of the question has some bearing upon a proper understanding of 
the arguments that are to follow. A debate on the question of Panama 
tolls would necessitate a relation of some of the history of our agree- 
ments with England in regard to the Panama Canal. In general, how- 
ever, it is not necessary to give much of the history of the question, and 
what is given may be worked in with the argument. 


As has already been stated, it is necessary for the first affirmative 
speaker to define any terms of the proposition that may need definitions. 


There are nearly always ideas closely related to a given subject that 
have no direct bearing on the question at issue. If these are not specif- 
ically excluded and the reason given for doing so, the questions at issue 
may become befogged. For instance, it is completely beside the point, in 
arguing against the restriction of immigration at the present time, to 
show that all Americans, besides those of Indian descent, are descended 
from immigrants. 


Not only should that which is irrelevant be excluded from the dis- 
cussion, but some points may be granted to the opposing side. Care must 
be taken not to grant anything that is absolutely essential to the proving 
of the main proposition. Nevertheless, it is safe and advisable to admit 
that there are two sides to the question. In the debate on preparedness, 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 9 


it is necessary for the affirmative to admit that any feasible plant of pre- 
paredness will add to the expense of the government. 


The most important part of the introductory work in the prepara- 
tion of a debate, however, consists in finding the radical differences be- 
tween the views of the affirmative and the views of the negative, or, in 
other words, the issues. In a discussion of the question of an embargo 
on the shipment of arms to Europe, the following issues arise: 


1. Is it legally wrong to sell arms to the warring nations? 

2. Would an embargo be advantageous to the United States? 

3. Would an embargo at the present time be a neutral act? 

4. Is the sale of ammunitions to the belligerents morally wrong? 


Those who favor an embargo would answer yes to all the questions. 
Those who oppose it would answer uo. Most of the arguments in favor 
of either side can be arranged under some one of these questions, if it 
is stated as a proposition. This part of the analysis is of the highest 
importance in good debating, for a concise, yet inclusive, statement of 
the real issues, makes the question intelligible both for the speaker and 
the auditor. 


THe ARGUMENT 


After the issues have taken shape, it remains to prove one or the 
other contention concerning them. The first step in doing this, in for- 
mal debating, consists in making a brief in which the main issues are 
shown in relation to the smaller points that go toward proving them. 
Causal relationship between the main proposition and the subordinate 
propositions must be clear. This causal relation can be shown by the 
use of the conjunction for between the two propositions. An example 
of a working brief is included in this bulletin, which may serve as a 
model for that kind of work. Others can be found in any book on de- 
bating. 


In proving the various subordinate propositions upon which the 
main proposition depends, evidence is used. This is of several kinds. It 
may be testimonial, as in the case of the evidence of a witness in a court. 
Testimonial evidence includes, too, the opinion of an authority on a 
given subject upon some point connected with it. The opinions of 
authorities may be in the form of letters, magazine articles, or books. 
The value of such evidence depends upon the competence of the authority 
and his freedom from prejudice or any kind of bias. The debater should, 
if possible, inform himself as to the authority whom he quotes. A com- 
mon mistake of young debaters is to quote anything that has appeared 
in print on a subject as authoritative. 


Besides testimonial evidence, there are many varieties of evidence, 
sometimes called, as a whole, circumstantial. Of circumstantial evidence, 
the most important kinds for the young debater are generalization, anal- 
ogy, the argument from cause to effect, and the argument from effect to 
cause. In generalization, a number of examples are discussed and a gen- 
eral rule is drawn therefrom. The debater then applies the rule to the 
case under debate. In arguing for commission government in a given 
city, a debater might examine the results of commission government in 
Galveston, Des Moines, and Sacramento. He might draw from these re- 
sults the rule that commission government is a good thing in the Ameri- 
can city of moderate size. He would then apply the rule to the given 


10 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


city. This kind of reasoning is valid only when the cases cited are nu- 
merous and typical enough to warrant drawing a general law. 


The argument from analogy is the argument that whatever is true 
of one thing is true of another thing that resembles it. Many of the 
early debates in this country upon the initiative and referendum con- 
tained the argument from analogy in attempting to show that what had 
succeeded in Switzerland would succeed in the United States. The test 
of this kind of argument lies in the exactness of the resemblance in es- 
sentials. 


Argument from cause to effect or from effect to cause is the most 
common type of argument. We see black clouds in the west. We say 
that it is going to rain. That is argument from cause to effect. We see 
ice in the morning. We deduce from that observed fact that it was cold 
the night before. This is argument from effect to cause. In using 
reasoning from effect to cause of this kind, we must be sure that the 
assigned cause could produce the effect; that no other cause could pro- 
duce the given effect, or if it could, that it was not in operation; and 
that there were no disturbing elements interfering with the assigned 
cause. Similar tests can be applied to the argument from cause to effect. 


It is not possible to give advice as to the best kind of evidence to use 
in debating. That varies with the question. In most questions, however, 
the debater will find that he can use a combination of all the forms of 
evidence. Familiarity with all kinds tends to make him more versatile 
and resourceful. 


Closely allied to argument are some kinds of false reasoning known 
as fallacies. Some of the more important kinds of fallacies besides those 
applied in connection with the discussion of the kinds of argument are 
“jenoring the question” and “begging the question.” 


A debater ignores the question when he presents evidence that has 
no real bearing on the question at issue. When an attorney abuses his 
opponent, he is ignoring the question. Appeals to popular passions and 
prejudice are examples of ignoring the question. The same applies to 
all arguments based on “what has been, should be.” 


Begging the question, though done in many ways, most frequently 
shows itself in the assumption of propositions that need to be proved and 
in the use of question-begging epithets. An example of the former kind 
of fallacy can be found in the following statement that is often heard: 
“Football should be abolished because it obviously exposes the player to 
possible injury.” The fallacy in this statement lies in the assumption as 
true of another proposition that needs to be proved. That proposition 
is: “All sports which expose a player to, possible injury should be abol- 
ished.”  Question-begging epithets abound on every side in argument. 
When a candidate says that the “nefarious scoundrel who opposes him 
should not be elected to office,” he is begging the question unless he proves 
the charge. When a person argues that the “brutal game of football 
should be abolished,” he is begging the question, for, if football is brutal, 
it should be abolished. The fallacy of begging the question is exceed- 
ingly common among young debaters, especially as regards assuming prop- 
ositions as true that need to be proved. Many speeches are nothing but 
strings of unproved assertions. 


REFUTATION 


It is necessary for a debater to refute the arguments of his opponents, 
but not to attempt to answer every point made. Some of this refuta- 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 11 


tion can be combined with the constructive argument. If the analysis of 
the question has been logical, if there is thorough knowledge of both sides 
of the question, the main points of the opposing debaters can be answered 
in connection with the positive argument. In a debate on the question 
of an embargo on arms, the affirmative speaker might present reasons to 
prove that an embargo on arms at this time would not be neutral and fol- 
low this with a refutation of arguments that are usually advanced in sup- 
port of the opposite contention. The debater should try in all cases to 
distinguish between a minor detail and a main argument, and not waste 
too much time in refuting the former. He should try to put himself in 
the place of his hearers and know what questions arise in their minds 
as the opposing arguments are made, and then answer those questions. 


THE CONCLUSION 


It is customary in most school debates for a speaker to give a sum- 
mary of his argument at the close of his speech. This is not objectionable 
in itself, but care should be taken to see that it is not mere formalistic 
repetition of what has already been said. No rule can be laid down to 
fit all cases, but it is sometimes better to close with emphasis of one point 
only than to utter a set of phrases. The strongest point should be put 
last, in any case. 


REBUTTAL 


In his rebuttal speech the debater replies to the arguments of his op- 
ponents. No new argument is introduced. Adequate preparation should 
be made for it, for a debater has no means of knowing just what argu- 
ments his opponents are going to use nor how much they are going to 
emphasize those that they do use. He should, then, be prepared before- 
hand to answer all the arguments of his opponents. An argument. can be 
stated on a card. On this same card, the debater can make an outline of 
the points to‘use in answering it, in their proper order, along with illus- 
trations, and quotations from authorities. If the speaker wishes to be 
prepared to answer any argument, he will have to prepare a large number 
of these cards. The occasion will show him which he must use. He should 
not try to cover too many points in the five-minute rebuttal. Ordinarily, 
he should attempt to answer only two or three. The relation of these to 
some previous argument should be made clear. The practice of writing 
and memorizing rebuttals, however, needs to be condemned, for it is in 
no way connected with the actual usages of practical public speaking. 
What has been said applies to the preparation of outlines for rebuttal, not 
to memorizing rebuttal speeches. 


PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY 


In preparing the speech for delivery, one may (1) write out the whole 
speech, memorize it and speak it from memory, or he may (2) memorize 
a written brief of the arguments in detail and trust to the occasion for 
suitable language with which to express it, or he may (3) memorize im- 
portant parts of the speech, or he may (4) memorize only a general out- 
line. The first method is the one in common use, because the young de- 
bater distrusts—and with good reason, unless he is master of the subject 
—the inspiration of the occasion. The other methods, especially the sec- 
ond, are better adapted to produce effective debating in the end. We may 
suppose, in most cases, however, that the debate will be written out. Then 
the debater should rehearse it over and over, either silently or aloud, until 
he is sure, if the exact words that he has written will not come, that 
others will. henna Zh 


12 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


DELIVERY 


The speaker should stand erect and look the audience squarely in the 
eyes. If it is possible, he should forget that he has hands. He should be 
courteous not only to the judges but to his opponents as well. He should 
stop speaking promptly on hearing the signal. He should take pains, how- 
ever, to be sure that his speech will not end before the bell is sounded. 


The speaking voice should be that of elevated conversation, but far 
more attention should be paid to distinct enunciation than is ordinarily 
done in conversation. The voice should be varied to fit the language 
and thought. A very loud voice is objectionable and a shrill voice is un- 
fortunate. The speaker should never leave the impression of having ex- 
hausted all his reserve power. Too great emphasis is, however, more 
uncommon among young speakers than a monotonous delivery | lacking 
in all persuasive quality. 


Gestures should not be forced or artificial in any way, nor should 
they be violent. Pounding the table and shaking the fist at opponents 
are especially bad. Though it is not necessary ‘for the speaker to re- 
main rooted in one spot, he should not walk aimlessly back and forth 
on the stage. | 

THE QUESTION 


__Resolved, That there should be a material increase in the naval and 
military armament of the United States over that provided for on June 


BOM LOS. 


(This specimen brief is intended to serve as an example of the sys- 
tem of brief-drawing which obtains in debating. ‘This brief is not set 
forth as an exhaustive analysis of the question nor as an outline to be 
followed in the actual preparation of the debates.) 


HISTORY OF THE QUESTION 


Geographic isolation from Europe and Asia, an absorbing interest in 
the economic development of our country, a studied avoidance of diplo- 
matic entanglements, and the absence of strong national neighbors have 
turned what was once our forefathers’ dread of militarism into a national 
tradition opposed to huge armies and mighty navies. 


But today the present European war with its effect upon our over- 
seas trade and the loss of American lives has revived the discussion of 
our national preparedness. Our protests about “the freedom of the 
seas” and “neutral trade” and the loss of American lives have forced us 
into the arena of European politics. 


Yet we have long been a world power. Our expulsion of Spain from 
the Western hemisphere, our acquisition of the Philippines, our policy 
of Asiatic exclusion and Oriental free trade, and the Monroe Doctrine 
were in themselves sufficient causes to arouse a discussion over national 
defense. They were the policies which brought us inevitably, though 
blindly, into world politics. 


Mental preparedness on the observance or disregard of our tra- 
ditional military and naval policy is one issue. Moral preparedness on 
our future foreign policy as the protector of Latin America, as a carrier 
of Western civilization into the Orient, as a defender of American lives, 
of “the freedom of the seas,” and of the world expansion of our trade 
is another issue. The problem is whether we can retain our present 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 13 


foreign policy and not discard our traditional military and naval policy. 
In short, are these two policies in themselves inconsistent ? 


e 

‘ The abandonment of our foreign policies is beside the main issue in 
the debate. For us the undecided question is whether we can best pro- 
tect our commerce and citizens and achieve our noblest of national pur- 
poses by means of increased armaments or by a reverence for our mili- 
tary and naval traditions. Our foreign policy recognized, our national 
purpose set forth, how then can the one be defended and the other ac- 
complished? 


By “naval and military armament provided for on June>3o0, 1915,” 
is meant that armament existing or authorized by Congress before that 
date. The maximum armament to be added during any one year in the 
future, which the negative may advocate, is limited by the Congressional 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1915. (The appropria- 
tions for that fiscal year totalled in round numbers about $250,000,000, 
for the naval and military establishments proper.) 


. 


THE Brier PROPER 
A firmative 
I. The foreign policy of the United States may involve us in war, for 


A. The enforcement. of the Monroe Doctrine may bring other na- 
tions into conflict with us, for 

1. The Platt Amendment in. 1901 makes the United States re- 
sponsible to the world for the treaties and the finances of 
Cuba, and also compels us to guarantee her independence. 

2. The United States is burdened as collector of debts of the 
Latin-American countries, for 

a. In 109003 we intervened in Venezuela, refusing to allow 
European nations to perform that duty. 

b. In 1904 we established a financial protectorate over Santo 
Domingo, taking control of the custom houses to in- 
sure the payment of the European demands. 

3. In 1904 the United States abetted in the revolt of the Panama 
Republic from Columbia and thus strengthened Europe and 
Latin-America in their distrust of our motives in advancing 
this doctrine. 

4. “The policy of watchful waiting” directed against Mexico 
since 1912 has proved very unsatisfactory to European na- 
tions. 

The maintenance of the policy depends upon our intention 

to defend it, for 

a. “This policy is respected in proportion to the might of 
the nation that asserts it,’ says Professor Coolidge of 
Harvard University. 

b. Europe does not approve of our exclusion of its in- 
fluence from Latin-America and our injection of our 
influence in to the Far East and in their own continent. 

c. “It is the duty of the United States to resist by every 

means in its power, even the exercise of any govern- 
mental jurisdiction in Venezuelan territory,” said Presi- 
dent Cleveland in 1895 to Great Britain. 


B. Our enforcement of the “open door” policy in the Orient may 
bring us into conflict with other nations, for 
1. While we demand this concession from the world powers, 


14 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


we refuse an extension of their influence in this hemis- 
phere. 

2. While we demand these concessions of freedom of trade, our 
Pacific Coast states may pass hostile anti-alien laws and 
clamor for “Asiatic exclusion.” 


C. Our enforcement of the policy of the protection of American 

property may bring us into conflict with other nations, for 

1. American ships may be sunk while sailing under the “Stars 
and Stripes.” 

2. Our important exports may be placed on the list of war con- 
trabands, thus destroying our foreign trade. 

aid bot nie freedom of the seas” may be denied to neutral nations, 
thus causing a severe loss to American industry. 


D. Our enforcement of the policy of universal protection of Amer- 
ican citizens may bring us into conflict with other nations, for 
1. American lives may be repeatedly taken by the unwarranted 

* sinking of neutral ships. 

2. American lives may be taken by the unwarranted sinking of 
American ships. 

3. American lives may be taken without cause by lawless citi- 
zens or even the military authorities. 

4. The recent Mexican atrocities reveal incidents sufficient to 
cause intervention. 

5. Our war upon Spain was partly caused by loss of American 
lives in Cuba, especially through the destruction of the 
Maine. 


II. The United States should adopt a naval and military program for the 
purpose of defending its foreign policy, for 


A. Our desire to avoid war cannot guarantee us against it, for 
1. Treaties are not sufficient protection for a peaceful nation, for 
a. The present war in Europe has shown that some nations 
will violate treaty agreements. 


B. The cost of preparedness would be less than the cost of unpre- 
paredness, for 
1. Unnecessary loss of life would be caused by the using of 
untrained men. 
2. Unnecessary destruction of foreign trade and merchant ships 
would be caused by superior foreign navies. 
3. Unnecessary loss of property would be caused by. an invasion 
of American territory. 
4. The maximum expense is inevitable for purchases of arms, 
ammunition, food, clothing, and other munitions during 
a period of war, for 
a. War prices are usually high at the outset. 
b. Our experience during the Civil War proved this. 
Preparedness would tend to insure peace and thus prevent 
the destruction of property and lives, for 
a. A great army and navy would make it impossible for 
other nations to invade our country or drive our ships 
from the seas. : 
b. Other nations would be less prone to attack us with our 
favorable geographical position aided by a powerful 
military and naval armament. 


C. Our foreign policy expresses our national ideals, which we 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 15 


should strive to achieve, for 
1. These ideals of self-government, liberty, international arbi- 
tration, the rights of neutral nations, permanent peace, and 
justice to the weak require prepared defenders, for 
a. These ideals can be more readily realized if the defend- 
ers are prepared to protect weak nations against wrong- 
doers, for 
x. Transgressors would not violate these ideals if they 
were aware that they would be punished. 


D. The thwarting of our national ideals and foreign policy would 

plunge us into war regardless of our preparedness, for 

1. We are a patriotic and righteous people, willing to defend that 
which we think just. 

2. There is a feeling that the United States would be victorious, 
since we have never been defeated in a war. 

3. We would rather suffer loss of life and property than have 
our nation branded with shame and dishonor. 


III. Our army and navy are not prepared to defend our foreign policies, 
for 


A. Our standing army is too small to combat the standing army of 
either Russia, France, Italy, Austria, Great Britain, Germany, or 
Japan, for 
1. The army of any of these seven world powers is many times 

larger than our standing army of less than 90,000 men. 

2. There are but °30,000 mobile soldiers in the United States 
proper to defend 98,000,000 people scattered over 3,000,000 
square miles of territory. 

3. 15,000 of these mobile troops are required on the Mexican 
boundary, leaving only 15,000 free for the country at large. 


B. Our reserve is too small to combat those of the great world pow- 
ers, for | 

1. Our trained and organized reserve consists of sixteen men. 

2. Great Britain with the smallest trained reserve of any world 
power, except the United States, had 670,000 men on the out- 
break of the war. Germany had a trained reserve at the 
same time of over 3,000,000 men. 

3. Our State militia is of slight importance at present, for 

a. “Out of 120,000 men enrolled in 1914, 30,000 failed to pre- 
sent themselves for annual inspection; 31,000 absented 
themselves from annual encampment; and 44,000 never 
appeared on the rifle range.” 


C. Citizen soldiery cannot be effectively substituted for a regular 
army, for 

1. “It would take not less than six months to equip civilian vol- 
unteers and teach them to use modern weapons of warfare,” 
said Secretary Garrison. 

2. Most statements place the time of equipment and training at 
twelve months, long after the enemy could have worked se- 
vere damage. 

3... Lhe Chief ‘of the ‘Staff, said~on January 18; 191s, that “at 
least 500,000 men were necessary for the first line of de- 
fense, and not less than 300,000 men in the organized militia.” 


ce 


D. The important branch of artillery has been neglected, for 
1. “We have nothing like sufficient artillery or artillery ammu- 


16 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


nition,” said Secretary Garrison in his report for 1914. 

2. We have no ammunition trains for artillery. 

3. We have not a single heavy field mortar of the type used to- 
day in Europe. 

4. “We are short 400,000,000 rifle cartridges, 11,000,000 rounds of 
artillery ammunition, and 2,000 field guns.” (Chief of 
Staff, 1914.) 


E. Our foreign possessions are not adequately guarded, for 

There are only 9,000 soldiers in the Philippines. . 

There are only 8,000 soldiers in the Hawaiian Islands. 

There are only 870 soldiers in Alaska. 

There are only 700 soldiers in Porto Rico. 

There are only 2,000 soldiers in Panama to guard our in- 
vestment of $400, 000,000. 


ot Fea 


F. Our navy has not kept pace with those of other nations, for 
1. Great Britain, Germany, and France have outstripped us in 
tonnage, range of guns, and speed. 
2. Many of our ships are of an obsolete type. 
3. “We are not prepared with scout cruisers, destroyers, sub- 
marines, or mine layers.” 
4. “Our navy possesses only I2 aeroplanes of too little speed 
and carrying capacity and no two of the same type.” 
5. Congress has supplied only one-half of the vessels the Gen- 
eral Navy Board considered necessary for the equipment of 
our navy. 
Our navy is short 4,500 men and 200 officers. 
Our navy is lacking in ten battleships on the basis of our 1903 
navy program. 
8. Our navy has but one mine layer, two transports, two repair 
ships, three supply ships, one hospital ship. There is only 
a small merchant marine in the United States to confiscate 
in time of war. One scout cruiser has been added since 
1904, and one gunboat has been added since 1902. 
9. “It would take five years or more to get the fleet in condi- 
tion to successfully meet an effective enemy,” said Rear Ad- 
miral Fiske last year. 


OD 


Negative 
I. The foreign policy of our country will not involve us in a war, for 


A. No nation desires to come in conflict with us, for 
1. Great Britain does not desire to come in conflict with us, for 
a. Our disputes for over one hundred years have been set- 
tled by arbitration. 
b. Our similar language and institutions will sustain in the 
future our friendly relations of the past. 
c. No misunderstanding can arise which the British will not 
be willing to arbitrate or settle by treaty. 
2. France does not desire to come in conflict with us, for 
a. The French Republic has always been friendly with the 
United States. 
b. France has no surplus population for which she seeks a 
colonial outlet. 
c. France is a peace-loving nation. 
3. Russia does not desire to come in conflict with us, for 
a. Her problem is to develop her present vast domain. 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 17 


b. Russia desires an outlet for her goods through some all- 
year port, a problem which is not related to our foreign 
policy. 

¢c. Russia is not concerned about the Monroe Doctrine, for 

x. She is not interested in Latin-American problems, ow- 
ing to the absence of possessions, investments, and 
citizens there. 

4. Germany does not desire to come in conflict with us, for 

a. If Germany is victorious in the present war she will sat- 
isfy her demands for territorial expansion, for 

x. She now holds the territory of several nations. * 

b. On concluding this war, Germany must direct her efforts 
towards regaining her foreign trade and rebuilding her 
merchant marine, for 

x. Her enemies have already laid plans for an economic 
war on her after the military war is over. 

y. The cost of this war will entail very heavy taxes on 
her present depreciating national resources. 

5. Japan does not desire to come in conflict with us, for 

a. Our navy is stronger than hers. 

b. Her invasion of the United States would require a pow- 
erful navy to guard her transportation of soldiers for 
3,000 miles. 

ec. Such a war would mean vast expenditures, thus increas- 
ing her already staggering public debt. 


II. The United States should not change its established military and 
navy policy, for ' 


A. Large armaments instead of insuring against war lead inevit- 
ably to. it, for 
1. The present European war is an illustration of the effects 
of increased armaments. 


B. There is no nation against whom we must prepare, for 
1. No nation desires to come in conflict with us. 
2. We do not desire to come in conflict with any nation. 


C. Absolute preparation is impossible, for 
1. To be thus prepared we must be able to combat the strongest 
possible adversary. 
2. The strongest possible adversary imaginable is a coalition 
of the world’s greatest military and naval powers. 


D. “A material increase in our armament would mean a material 
decrease in our moral influence,” for 
1. Europe would look with misgivings on our advances for 
peace if at the same time we were spending hundreds of 
millions more on armaments, for 
a. Europe would think that we were making ready for the 
very acts that we were trying to stop elsewhere. 
b. Europe would think that benefits could be gained from 
war, if the chief neutral nation and most pacific one 
had discarded its traditional policy for one of mili- 
tarism. 
2. Our efforts in establishing Peace Conferences, International 
Courts, and movement towards disarmament would be mis- 
construed if we adopted a policy opposed to such doctrines. 


E. Our present international position is not due to our army nor our 
navy, for 


18 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


1. The United States has gained the friendship of the world by 
establishing a diplomacy of frankness. 

Bakelite United States has gained the admiration of other nations 
by “twice withdrawing her troops from Cuba; by paying 
helpless Spain $20,000,000 for the Philippines; by returning 
the Boxer indemnity to China; by refusing to interpret the 
Panama Canal Treaty to her special advantage: by her sup- 
port of the Hague Tribunal; by refusing to grab Mexico 
when Europe was at war; by spending millions in relieving ~ 
suffering the world over,’ and by championing the cause 
of the oppressed and weaker nations. 


III. Our army and navy can defend our foreign policies, for 


A. In case of armed conflict the United States would not invade 

its enemy, for 

I. Our navy has been built as our line of defense against inva- 
sion, and not for offensive action. 

2. Ony small standing army has been maintained in order to re- 
pel foreign invasion and not for aggression. 

3. The spirit of the American people is pacific and their wars 
are to be wars of defense and not of conquest. 


B. Our coast defenses are strong enough to serve their purposes as 
a temporary check against invasion, for 

1. “Our material for coast defense is fairly adequate in the mat- 
ter of guns, mortars, and mine material.” (Report of Chief 
of Staff, 1914.) 

2. “The coast fortifications of the ried States are all right 
and among the best, and even General Leonard Wood has to 
admit that the fortifications at-Panama are ‘adequate,’ ” says 
General Goethals. 

3. “If we were to undertake to fortify our coastline of 21,000 
miles so that nobody could land upon it, we would have the 
entire American people doing nothing else except standing 
upon their border and spending all their money for that 
purpose,’ said ex-Secretary of War Stimson. 


C. Any material increase in our military armament is unnecessary, 
for 
1. No nation can land sufficient troops unon our shores within a 

short period, for . 

a. “It required weeks to carry 32,000 of the Canadian con- 
tingent in 35 transports, guarded by a large fleet on a 
sea free from enemies, over to England.” 

b. “No nation could possibly land 100,000 men here save 
after weeks and months of preparation. Probably only 
England, with her great sea-power, could accomplish 
this at all. It was shown that to move a force of 200,000 
German soldiers to England with all their guns, horses, 
forage, transports, wagons, and food supplies for three 
weeks, would take every ship in the German merchant 
marine, including all those in Asian and Australian wa- 
ters, and that the speed of this impossible fleet could not 
be much over twelve miles an hour. What such an un- 
dertaking would be across 3,000 miles of water, any one 
can figure out from the weeks it took the Japanese to 
transport their armies to Manchuria and for us to send 
a few thousand men to the Philippines.” (Nation, Dec. 


10, 1914.) 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 19° 


c. A citizen soldiery could be trained and equipped during 
the time consumed by an enemy preparing for such an 
invasion, and their effecting it against our battleships, 
submarines, and coast defenses and against our strong 
army. 


D. Any material increase in our navy is unnecessary, for 
1. “Ship for ship our navy is equal if not superior to any in the 
world.” (Secretary Daniels.) 
2. No nation could send its entire fleet to our shores, for 
a. A part of their navy must patrol the seas to attack our 
merchant marine and stray battleships. 
b. A part of their navy must attack our widely scattered in- 
sular possessions, 
c. A part of their navy must defend home ports and shipping. 
3. An expenditure of a portion of our annual appropriation of 
$140,000,000 for our navy on the inexpensive submarines 
would make our shores:almost impregnable, for 
a. “Ten submarines would insure our possession of the 
Philippines.” 
a. be ees would insure our possession of Hon- 
olulu.” 
c. “Five submarines at each end of the Canal would insure 
it against attack.” 
dairy submarines would protect all our ports on both 
coasts.” 


E. Any material increase in appropriations is unnecessary, for 

1. The United States spent annually $250,000,000 on its army and 

navy from Igor to 1015, inclusive, totalling $3,800,000,000. 

2. Germany has the second navy in the world, costing her but 
$1,137,000,000, while we have spent $1,656,000,000 for the 
fourth navy. (Ex-Secretary of the Navy Meyer.) 

3. “With less than 13 per cent of the number of men that Ger- 
many had in her army in 1912, we spent 53 per cent as 
much as she did.” 

4. “The United States maintains many useless forts and navy 
yards,” for 

a. Fort Russell at Cheyenne, Wyoming, cost $5,000,000 to 
I91I. Yet it is distant from the nearest frontier, ex- 
clusive of .Canada, 850 miles. 

b. “The United States has more than twice as many first 
class navy yards as Great Britain, which has a navy 
twice the size of ours. We have three times as many 
navy ‘yards as Germany, which has a larger navy than 
ours.” (Ex-Secretary Meyer.) ‘ 


GENERAL REFERENCES 


Abridged Debaters Handbook Series: “National Defense.” Published 
by H. W. Wilson Co., White Plains, N. Y. Price 25 cents. 


Debaters Handbook Series: ‘National Defense.” H. W. Wilson Co., 
White Plains, N. Y. Price $1. 


Roland G. Usher: ‘“Pan-Americanism, a Forecast of the Inevitable 
Clash Between the United States and Europe’s Victor.’ Century Co., 
N. Y. 1915. Price $2. 


20 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


American Review of Reviews: Vol. 51, p. 48, January, 1915. “An 
Efficiency Expert on National Defense.’ Harrington Emerson. 


Congressional Record: Vol. 52, pp. 3661-77; 2679-2717; 1720-38. Jan. 
29, 1915, “Debate on the Naval Appropriation Bill.” 


Current Opinion: Vol. 50, pp. 5-8, July, 1915. “What We Must Do 
to Provide Adequate Military and Naval Defense.” 


Independent: Vol. 82, pp. 532-3, June 28, 1915. “College and Na- 
tional Defense.” John Grier Hibben. 


Literary Digest: Vol. 50, pp. 137-8; 162-9, Jan. 23, 1915. “Nation 
Wide Poll of the Press on Army and Navy Increase.” 


Outlook: Vol. 110, pp. 495-9, June 30, 1915. “Pacifism and Prepared- 
ness; a Poll of the Press.” 


World’s Work: Vol. 20, pp. 377-85, Feb., 1915. “Diplomacy Our First 
Line of Defense.” W. Morton Fullerton. 


Independent: Vol. 85, p. 15, Jan. 3, 1916. “Training Our Youth for 
Defense.” Geo. E. Chamberlain. ; 


Outlook: Vol: 111; pp. 833-4, Dec. 8, 1915. “Preparedness, a Poll of 
the Press.” 


Literary Digest: Vol. 52, pp. 54-5, Jan. 8, 1916. “The Naval Increase 
Programs.” 


Literary Digest: pp. 835-6, Oct. 31, 1914; pp. 1159-61, Dec. 12, I9T4. 
Outlook: pp. 644-5, July 26, 1913; pp. 394-5, Feb. 21, 1914. 


Independent: pp. 301-4, Feb. 8, 1912; pp. 408-11, Feb. 22, 1912; pp. 
619-23, Mar. 21, 1912; pp. 777-80, Apr. II, 1912. 


- 


Harper’s Weekly: p. 12, Aug. 31, 1912. 


AFFIRMATIVE REFERENCES 


John Grier Hibben: “The Higher Patriotism.” Scribner, N. Y., 
Price 60 cents. 


R. M. Johnston: “Arms and the Race.” The Century Co., N. Y. 
Price $1. 


Hudson Maxim: “Defenseless America.” Hearst’s International Li- 
brary’ Co., N.Y erors:) Price Sz. 
a 
Navy League of the United States: “Do Armaments Cause War,” 
Navy League of the United States, Washington, D. C. Pamphlet No. 32. 
Gratis. 


University of Wisconsin: Department of Debating and Public Dis- 
cussion. Bulletin No. 624, general series, No. 442, pp. 4-19, I9T4. 


Woodrow Wilson: “National Defense.” Address before the Manhat- 
tan Club of New York, Nov. 4, 1915. May be had from the Navy League 
of the United States, Washnigton, D. C. 


Century: Vol. 90, pp. 17-23, May, 1915. “The Ounce of Prevention; 
Switzerland versus Belgium, with a Lesson for the United States.” 


DEBATING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION 21 


’ Saturday Evening Post:: Vol. 187, pp. 3-5, 32-5, 36-8. “The Mili- 
‘tary and Naval Defenses of the United States: What they are and what 
they should be.” William Howard Taft. 


Scientific American: Vol. 112, p. 192, Feb. 27, 1915. ‘‘Preparedness 
the Only Sure Guarantee of Peace.” 


Outlook: Vol. 111, pp. 427-31, Oct. 20, 1915: ‘The Defense of the 
Republic.” Geo. H. Putnam. : 


World’s Work: pp. 75-84, May, 1914. 
North American Review: pp. 741-60, June, 1913. 


Congressional Record: 63d Congress, 3d session, pp. 99-104, Dec. 
10, 1914. 


Everybodys: pp. 579-88, May, 1913. 

Outlook: pp. 113-8, May 16, 1914; pp. 651-4, July 18, 1914. 
Independent: pp. 57-9, January 12, 1914. 

Nation: p. 488, April 30, 1914. 

McClure’s: pp. 677-83, April, ror2. 

Harper’s Weekly: pp. 6-8, Aug. 16, 1913. 


NEGATIVE REFERENCES 


David Starr Jordan: ‘War and Waste.” Doubleday, Page & Co., 
Ney 1013, Price $1.25: 


Arthur W. Allen: “The Drain of Armaments.” World Peace Foun- 
dation, Vol. 3, No. 6, June, 1913. N. Y. 


Theodore E. Burton: “Naval Armaments.” American Association 
for International Conciliation. December, 1910. Gratis. 


Charles Edward Jefferson: “The Nemesis of Armaments.” The New 
York Peace Society. Gratis. 


William J. Bryan: “The People vs. Special Interests.” Commoner, 
October, 1915. Price, single issue, 10 cents. This issue contains other 
material for the negative. 


Atlantic Monthly: Vol. 107, pp. 820-37, December, 1914. “The War 
and the Way Out.” 


Survey: Vol. 34, pp. 355-0, July 17, 1915. “Revolt Against War.” 
Jane Addams. 


- Nation: Vol. 99, p. 647, Dec. 3, 1914. “The Preparedness Flurry.” 


Independent: Vol. 85, pp. 49-50, Jan. 10, 1916. “The West and Pre- 
paredness.” Governor Capper of Kansas. 


Outlook: Vol. 103, p. 145, Jan. 18, 1913. “Against a Strong Navy.” 


New Republic: Vol. 5, pp. 38-0, Nov. 13, 1915. “War Cripples.” 
Madeline Z. Doty. 


World Peace Foundation: Pamphlet series, October, 1911, No. 3, 


22 DIVISION OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 


part 2; part 5, April, 1912, No. 5, part I; part 5; October, 1912, No. 7, 
part 5. 

Woodrow Wilson: Address to Congress, Dec. 8, 1914. 

Atlantic Monthly: pp. 820-37, December, 1014. 


Congressional Record: 63d Congress, 3d Session, pp. 105-14, Dec. 
10, 1914. 


Independent: pp. 345-7, Feb. 13, 1913; pp. 391-3, Dec. 14, 1914; pp. 
228, 247-8, Aug. 17, 1914. 


Nation: pp. 278-9, Sept. 25, 1913; pp. 421-2, Apr. 16, 1914; pp. 63-4, 
July 16, 1914. 


Independent: pp. 43-4, Oct. 12, 1914; pp. 125-6, Oct. 26, 1914; ‘pp. 
427-9, Sept. 28, 1914; pp. 392-3, Dec. 14, 1914. “ 


Century: pp. 51-9, November, 1914. 
Scribner’s: pp. 245-51, February, I915. 


ASSOCIATIONS AND LEAGUES FURNISHING MATERIAL 


Bulletins and pamphlets bearing on the subject of Armaments may be 
had from the following associations and leagues: 


American Association for International Conciliation, 407 West 117th 
St., New York. 


American Defense League, 15 Broad St., New York. 

American Defense Society, 303 Fifth Ave, New York. 

American League to Limit Armaments, Room 509, 43 Cedar St., New 
York. 


American Legion, Room 303, Maritime Building, 10 Bridge St., New 
York. 


American Peace and Arbitration League, 31 Nassau St., New York. 
American Peace Society, 31 Beacon St., Boston, Mass. 


American Society for the See Settlement of International Dis- 
putes, Baltimore, Md. 


Church Peace Union, 70 Fifth Ave., New York. 


Note: In the arrangement of references, the best are put at the top 
of the list in each case. 










aos" 


*, Ap : 3 





' Pye ] 
et th 





* 

















‘ 








